So Scripture is not your authority for faith, doctrine and practice?
I'm disappointed that Scripture is not your authority for faith, doctrine and practice. . .
However, in Pauline doctrine the unity of the two-in-one enfleshment of Christ and the Church, and of husband and wife (Ephesians 5:30-31) is more than just implied, it is emphasized.
They are union and they are separate.
I think this is a very orthodox idea.sometimes I find it useful to think of the Son as the Form of mankind, from which humanity fell.
Many Christians and Jews were strong Platonists and they did not see contradiction. Philo, Clement, and Origen are examples. Icons of Plato are found in old EO churches. John Chrysostom actually interpreted Php 2:6 in Platonic terms and used that interpretation against Arianism. However, based on my readings, I think it is more likely that the Apostle Paul meant the word "form" in a traditional rather than platonic way.It doesn't lead me to wonder if Platonism is the basis for the Hebrew religion, but I do wonder if the truth of the Hebrew religion could be the basis for Platonism.
Scripture usually speaks of God the Father when talking about God. The word "theotes" or "theiotes" which means Deity or Godhood in general is used only 2 times in the NT. Perhaps this is what you mean by saying that God transcends hypostases? But it is not a 4th hypostasis. I guess if this is what you mean, then I'm beginning to understand you.If the one God does not transcend (for lack of a better word) Persons, in such a way so as to transcend their distinction, then we cannot say these three are the one God. Perhaps one of the three can speak as and identify as God, but not the others.
Not sure what you mean. I think you missed 'not' in your 1st sentence.If the one God does transcend the Persons themselves, in such a way that the ousia of each of the individuals is not God, then none of the Persons can identify as God, much less speak as God.
I think of God the Father as transcending the other hypostases who originate from His Being.To say the individuals are homoousion, and that the Ousia they share is God, is to say that God transcends the Persons, in such a way so as to transcend their distinction, while maintaining that each of their identities is the one God, while not confusing the Persons themselves.
I have a feeling that we're in agreement and the only question is which way of expression is more simple and easier to understand .Therefore, if "Ousia" derives from "I AM", the one God is the "I AM", Jesus as God the Son truthfully identified Himself as the "I AM", and the Son is homoousion with the Father and Spirit, then all three are the "I AM," individually and collectively, such that the Father is God, the Son is God, the Spirit is God and yet there are not three Gods, but one God.
Scripture usually speaks of God the Father when talking about God. The word "theotes" or "theiotes" which means Deity or Godhood in general is used only 2 times in the NT. Perhaps this is what you mean by saying that God transcends hypostases? But it is not a 4th hypostasis. I guess if this is what you mean, then I'm beginning to understand you.
Not sure what you mean. I think you missed 'not' in your 1st sentence.
If the one God does transcend the Persons themselves, in such a way that the ousia of each of the individuals is not God, then none of the Persons can identify as God, much less speak as God.
I was waiting for your comments in this thread. Do you have specific observations on what has been communicated so far?The doctrine of the Trinity affords us the opportunity to think about God very differently than other models of theism; namely that the portrait we get of God isn't a super-powerful sky entity.
I don't approach scripture the same way as you do and I'm not a sola scripturist. I'm a prima scripturist. I treat scripture as foundational and authoritative but when push comes to shove, finding the truth is more important to me than rigid adherence to the written word.
You allow yourself a "freedom" with Scripture which I do not allow myself.It's ok to speak of the Church, as a whole, figuratively as the bride of Christ. Israel was referred to in feminine terms as well. It is poetic and maybe Paul saw something of more significance than that, but I'm not sure it was much more.
I don't think it's intended to be applied to the believer, individually, as a model for mystical union or anything similar.
And it by far is not even related to the topic of this thread.
That's interesting.
I have to go out and will comment on this later. Does it remind you of a picture you posted ?
**Note to mods: apologies if discussing the trinity is out of bounds. This is not intended to challenge trinitarianism, and I could not find a rule against discussing interpretations of trinitarianism. If it's against the rules please feel free to delete this post.
I have somewhat of a latent interest in debating Muslims on topics related to christianity, and if you've ever watched some of these debates in places like speaker's corner, you'll know what I'm talking about when I say they can be a challenge.
I was watching one of these debates today on youtube between a Muslim and a Christian who seemed fairly theologically astute. Unfortunately, despite his theological prowess, the Christian did not appear to me to win. He was hung up on, in short, the interdependency of the wills between Persons, subordinationism, essential hierarchy, relational hierarchies, etc. His knowledge and ability to articulate it, while impressive, gives the impression of mental gymnastics, and his opponent seems to have a field day with it, which is not an all too uncommon event in these debates. It is one of the more respectable exchanges I've seen, but it was not enough to win the crowd.
Having some experience in similar debates myself, I kept thinking to myself, why not "Ousia" as "Being?" For me, interpreting the singular Being of God as transcending Persons, fixes all of the problems. God is One and three Persons. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit all speak as the singular God in various places in scripture. Granted, people tend to have a problem imagining Being beyond distinct individuals, but for me this is what homoousianism is all about, it can be supported with scripture and this would have made short work of all of the problems related to hierarchy presented by the opponent. But instead of just charging ahead with my opinion, I want to hear others' qualms with it.
Lastly, my last watering hole for this sort of debate was overrun by moderation with a bias against christianity. If anyone knows of a good place to go and debate against opponents in either Judaism or Islam, please let me know.
Why do you want to debate? In my experience, debates just get people's anger up. My approach would be to discuss the more fundamental question of the inspiration of Scripture by presenting my beliefs about that definite historical proof and then going to the Gospel of John to show why that book clearly shows that God is mysteriously three Persons in one God, whose nature is beyond human reasoning.
In my experience, also, we need a friendly personal relationship with that person of a different faith. In a "debate," we seldom have such a relationship.
One of the best Christian books I every read is an EO book titled "Christ the Eternal Tao" by Hieromonk Damascene. It reviews the Tao Te Ching in view of the Gospel and advocates for the translation of Logos into Tao, among other things.Although it does remind me of the old Jesuit translation of the gospel of John rendering Logos as Tao, which, if I'm right, seems like it's a slight mistranslation.
I would agree with Islam on this point and I think it is clearly stated in the beginning of the Nicene Creed:The NT's treatment of the Father as, primarily, God, is related in my reading of it to Jesus being shown to be a theist and not an atheist -- another point Muslims like to draw from the NT to use against Christians in debate.
The Father is not the ousia of the Son. The Father and the Son have the same ousia. They are 2 hypostases of the same ousia. You and I are 2 hypostases of the human ousia. But we are different in reason, will, and appetites. So, we are different human beings. The Father and the Son are distinguished only because the Father is unoriginate while the Son is born or begotten. So, they are not 2 separate individuals.Your attention to the fact that the Father is treated primarily as the one God in the NT does raise an interesting point though. If the Father is the ousia of the Son, considering what an ousia is, it would seem that the Son could rightly claim to be the Father, but this would seem to confuse the Persons.
The reason I got into talking about oriental religions is precisely because I don't think that believing in one ultimate being implies monotheism. If the ultimate being is one, you call it ousia or God and George Lucas calls it the force, but this ultimate being is perceived in 3 forms then this is pantheism. Your model results in polytheism.To say the individuals are homoousion, and that the Ousia they share is God, is to say that God transcends the Persons, in such a way so as to transcend their distinction, while maintaining that each of their identities is the one God, while not confusing the Persons themselves.
This is not a problem. The Logos originated from the Father and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and they are one Being.Your attention to the fact that the Father is treated primarily as the one God in the NT does raise an interesting point though. If the Father is the ousia of the Son, considering what an ousia is, it would seem that the Son could rightly claim to be the Father, but this would seem to confuse the Persons. I'm not certain this is a real problem,
Hiermonk Damascene is currently abbot of St Herman of Alaska Monastery, Platina, California. The book is based on studies by the late hieromonk Seraphim Rose.One of the best Christian books I every read is an EO book titled "Christ the Eternal Tao" by Hieromonk Damascene.
I may find Buddhist philosophy interesting and many non-Christians like Jesus' teaching in the Gospels. But following the religion is a different issue.But Tao philosophy and Tao religion are different things.
Your model of the Trinity may be suitable for reaching Hindus or Chinese but Jews and Muslims will certainly call it polytheism.but this ultimate being is perceived in 3 forms then this is pantheism. Your model results in pantheism.
Would you recommend a certain video as an example where the Muslim seems to win the debate?If you want to have a better idea of the kind of debates I'm talking about, do a search on youtube for speaker's corner. In my experience this is merely a microcosm for what is happening elsewhere, and around the world. Sadly, usually it seems to me that muslims are mostly winning these debates against christians. But I think we can do better.
One of the best Christian books I every read is an EO book titled "Christ the Eternal Tao" by Hieromonk Damascene. It reviews the Tao Te Ching in view of the Gospel and advocates for the translation of Logos into Tao, among other things.
But Tao philosophy and Tao religion are different things. I posted a picture of the Three Pure Ones who represent the Taoist Trinity, the three highest gods in the Taoist pantheon. They are regarded as pure manifestation of the Tao and the origin of all sentient beings. In this view, the Tao is a non-personal Force (kind of like the "force" in Star Wars") that "can be roughly thought of as the flow of the Universe, or as some essence or pattern behind the natural world that keeps the Universe balanced and ordered." It is perhaps similar of the Hindu concept of the Brahman (ultimate being).
I would agree with Islam on this point and I think it is clearly stated in the beginning of the Nicene Creed:
We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.
The Father is not the ousia of the Son. The Father and the Son have the same ousia. They are 2 hypostases of the same ousia. You and I are 2 hypostases of the human ousia. But we are different in reason, will, and appetites. So, we are different human beings. The Father and the Son are distinguished only because the Father is unoriginate while the Son is born or begotten. So, they are not 2 separate individuals.
The reason I got into talking about oriental religions is precisely because I don't think that believing in one ultimate being implies monotheism. If the ultimate being is one, you call it ousia or God and George Lucas calls it the force, but this ultimate being is perceived in 3 forms then this is pantheism. Your model results in pantheism.
This is not a problem. The Logos originated from the Father and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and they are one Being.
Would you recommend a certain video as an example where the Muslim seems to win the debate?
I watched the whole video. Thank you. Joshua kept trying to change the subject to deep theology instead of answering simple questions and addressing the ridiculous Quranic verse that was quoted. The Muslim understood Christian doctrine better than the Christians. If the average church-going Christian cannot answer these simple questions, we are doomed. Lord have mercy.The second half of this video is what I was watching
I watched the whole video. Thank you. Joshua kept trying to change the subject to deep theology instead of answering simple questions and addressing the ridiculous Quranic verse that was quoted. The Muslim understood Christian doctrine better than the Christians. If the average church-going Christian cannot answer these simple questions, we are doomed. Lord have mercy.